The main estimate (Theorem 2.1 of the paper) #
The three inputs of Section 7 of "ζ(5) is irrational" (A. Fauzan, 2026), all proved:
degree_F:F_Khas degreeh = 37 n, (2.9) (Zeta5Irrational.Degree).real_bound: a weakening of Proposition 6.3,0 < F_K(ζ(5))andlog F_K(ζ(5)) ≤ U K² + 27 K log K + 200 K(Zeta5Irrational.RealBound), using27in place of the paper's24.normalization: positive rationalsm_Kwithm_K F_K ∈ ℤ[X](integral_mN) andlog m_K ≤ (A_eff + ε) K²eventually (growth_mN), withA_eff = 1.36 < -U.
From these, main_estimate proves Theorem 2.1 with decay rate c = -800 (A_eff + U) > 0 in
place of the paper's 139/5. This suffices for the irrationality criterion.
A weakening of Proposition 6.3, with 27 K log K in place of 24 K log K
(see Zeta5Irrational.RealBound for its decomposition).
Propositions 5.1 and 5.2 in the form proved here: a positive rational normalisation
m_K with m_K F_K ∈ ℤ[X] for all n ≥ 1 (integral_mN), and for every ε > 0,
eventually log m_K ≤ (A_eff + ε) K² (growth_mN).
Theorem 2.1 of the paper, with the decay rate c = -800 (A_eff + U) > 0 instead of
139/5: for all large n, some positive rational multiple Q_n of F_{40n} is an integer
polynomial of degree 37 n with 0 < Q_n(ζ(5)) < exp(-c n²).